philosophy meta-forum

"Professor X" in Kipnis: what came of him?

Alberto

20 day(s) ago

but we are all complicit to a small (and variable) extent for letting her and the SJWs who support her go unchallenged. How ridiculous is it that the only challenger had to be Kipnis, who isn't even in our discipline?

It's not exactly a bright, shining moment in the history of philosophy, is it. We became afraid of an hysterical mob and we are still hiding and cowering while it rampages across the discipline, harming members of our profession on the strength of transparent lies. It fell to a feminist film professor to stand up and say that this is not rational and is majorly fucked up and is in violation of almost every principle philosophers are supposed to defend: truth, due process, individual autonomy, epistemic humility, etc. I cant even say I'm angry because I was part of the crowd of philosophers that stood by and is still standing by saying nothing. I'm mostly just ashamed of myself for being such a fucking coward. I wish this could all just go away.

Anniceris

20 day(s) ago

"an hysterical mob"

Hilarious. Do you also say "an historian"?

Martha

20 day(s) ago

that *would* be an hilarious affectation

Roger

20 day(s) ago

Paracelsus, despite what its tone suggests, your comment isn't very good - but it couldn't be, given the ludicrous behavior it is ultimately defending. On whether the Kipnis book is one-sided, this isn't even remotely controversial. Kipnis has given multiple excuses in multiple venues for *not even so much as contacting* the accusers in either the undergrad or grad case. This has been discussed many times by many people, publicly (even under their own names!)

Also, while you are happy to write "Kipnis," why do you keep writing Leydon-Hardy's full name over and over again? More just defense of innocents in professional philosophy?

In your reply to this sentence: "But no one accused any professors in these cases of just having a relationship with students. The accusations were accusations involve things like harassment or rape." ...

... your wrote, "Just a few posts above there is the infamous quote from Justice Whineberg: (paraphrasing) "it's not that hard to not have sex with your students."

That's a very dumb example, since the quote you're responding to obviously regards Title IX or other official accusations, not someone's (true) general statement on a blog.

You then say that Ludlow "was at the end of the day being charged with just having a relationship with LLH." What dumb sophistry. This just literally isn't what Ludlow was being accused of. It plays well on the metablog to spin it this way - it helps justify your behavior of anonymously shaming and humiliating your neighbor beyond what has happened already, perhaps, but it's just literally false. Even the lesser finding of "manipulation" wasn't equivalent to just having a relationship, despite your sophistry. Again, no one has (in any court) accused Ludlow with just having a relationship with students. You may not like the fact that some people think that they were harassed or raped in some kind of relationship context, but that's the *most* you'll get here (and, of course, the nature of the relationship is itself disputed).

Francesco

20 day(s) ago

I don't want to get in the middle of an argument between Paracelsus and Roger, but I want to chime in on the use of Lauren Leydon-Hardy's full name, because I intend to follow that practice as well. I can't speak for others, but I am using her full name in every post in which I mention her because it is my way of protesting her attacks on others while she attempts to cloak herself as Jane Doe. I find it outrageous beyond comprehension that she has been given a free pass to launch her accusations and title IX attacks on people while cloaking herself, even while she is writing Huffington Post articles about the case and not identifying herself as the accuser in the case. Am I doing the same thing she is by saying this anonymously? Well (i) I'm not about to commit career suicide and (ii) I'm not a party to the dispute trying to pass herself off as as a neutral observer while writing essays on Huffington Post (or anywhere else). By the way, someone should contact Huffington Post about that, because it is clearly a breach of journalistic ethics and surely against the policies of that publication.

Giambattista

20 day(s) ago

it is my way of protesting her attacks on others while she attempts to cloak herself as Jane Doe. I find it outrageous beyond comprehension that she has been given a free pass to launch her accusations and title IX attacks on people while cloaking herself,

Francesco

There is no "free pass" - it's a mechanism in the Title IX and legal system. And it's open to challenge, as the challenge by Kipnis' team makes evident. That you feel the need to direct your anonymous "protesting" energy to naming a particular person who has legal disputes with a couple of other people is extremely weird.

I'm not about to commit career suicide

Francesco

Of course you are not about to commit career suicide - no one wants their own career destroyed, though a few people, like you, seem to be happy to participate in the destruction of the careers and potential careers of others. Again, weird!

someone should contact Huffington Post about that, because it is clearly a breach of journalistic ethics and surely against the policies of that publication.

Francesco

Your comments about Huffington Post are really dumb, since what I assume you are referring to is an opinion piece and not pretending to be some disinterested piece of journalism. In any case, it's just pathetic to cite someone's choice to write a HuffPost piece under their own name while remaining anonymous in legal proceedings as an excuse to continue to demean them and try to make sure everyone Googling in the future knows your best anonymous guess about their past relationships, etc. Please rethink your principles here. And remember, it's also bad to do this stuff when it's about anyone else - even powerful people - not just one particular graduate student.

Francesco

19 day(s) ago

Giambattista are you for real?

Your comments about Huffington Post are really dumb, since what I assume you are referring to is an opinion piece and not pretending to be some disinterested piece of journalism.

Whether it was an opinion piece or not it was a violation of basic journalistic standards for Lauren Leydon-Hardy to hide the fact that she was a litigant in the matter on which she was writing. There is simply no excuse for what she did, and it reflects upon her character and her level of dishonesty.

In any case, it's just pathetic to cite someone's choice to write a HuffPost piece under their own name while remaining anonymous in legal proceedings as an excuse to continue to demean them and try to make sure everyone Googling in the future knows your best anonymous guess about their past relationships, etc.

I don't care about her past relationships. I do care that the world knows this fact: Lauren Leydon-Hardy is deeply dishonest and dangerous.

Peg

19 day(s) ago

Laura Kipnis:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/laura-kipniss-endless-trial- by-title-ix

Peg

19 day(s) ago

Possible thesis proposals for Lauren Leydon-Hardy:

Huffington Post Bylines and the Ambiguities of Personal Identity

The Possible Worlds of Title IX Complaints

Gricean Implicature in Male Faculty Offers of Assistance

Hughes

19 day(s) ago

You all seem so very confident in your views about the character and motives of a graduate student most of you have probably never met. I don't know where you get it. Such credence. Very certainty!

Antiochus

19 day(s) ago

Whether it was an opinion piece or not it was a violation of basic journalistic standards for Lauren Leydon-Hardy to hide the fact that she was a litigant in the matter on which she was writing. There is simply no excuse for what she did, and it reflects upon her character and her level of dishonesty.

...

I don't care about her past relationships. I do care that the world knows this fact: Lauren Leydon-Hardy is deeply dishonest and dangerous.

Francesco

You and others have continually pointed out the HuffPost thing..... why do you keep on pointing out the same piece of information? There are lots of true things in the world that one might repeat over and over again..... why choose this one?

The idea that you and others don't care about past relationships would be funny if the gossip wasn't so damaging. Past relationships get discussed all the time here,and repeatedly, adding nothing new.

We're talking about a person of relative institutional powerlessness (who you probably don't know) who has or had some legal disputes with a few people. (But remember, even if she had institutional power, the behavior here would still be sick.) The idea that this person is "deeply dishonest and dangerous" is just mindbogglingly hysterical. This is yet another reason why neither you nor others here would ever say this stuff under your own names. The idea that you are threatened by this person would be immediately recognized as absurd.

Antiochus

19 day(s) ago

You all seem so very confident in your views about the character and motives of a graduate student most of you have probably never met. I don't know where you get it. Such credence. Very certainty!

Hughes

The hypocrisy in this matter rivals the stupidity. Most people here - when the politics fit - would decry the practice of Internet shaming and character assassination campaigns, partly on the grounds that the few narrow cases that provide the evidence for such campaigns are woefully inadequate for evaluating a full human being. And even if they were adequate evidence, the act of working toward the shame and humiliation of your neighbor is still deeply immoral and psychologically embarrassing.

Evelyn

19 day(s) ago

Brotevi, please take a 24-hour hiatus from posting here.

You all seem so very confident in your views about the character and motives of a graduate student most of you have probably never met. I don't know where you get it. Such credence. Very certainty!

Hughes

The hypocrisy in this matter rivals the stupidity. Most people here - when the politics fit - would decry the practice of Internet shaming and character assassination campaigns, partly on the grounds that the few narrow cases that provide the evidence for such campaigns are woefully inadequate for evaluating a full human being. And even if they were adequate evidence, the act of working toward the shame and humiliation of your neighbor is still deeply immoral and psychologically embarrassing.

Antiochus

Miriam

19 day(s) ago

On whether the Kipnis book is one-sided, this isn't even remotely controversial. Kipnis has given multiple excuses in multiple venues for *not even so much as contacting* the accusers in either the undergrad or grad case. This has been discussed many times by many people, publicly (even under their own names!)

The question isn't whether Kipnis is one-sided or whether she is neutral (she clearly is no longer neutral). The first question is whether she said something FALSE. On this point we are STILL waiting for LLH, or anyone really, to give us an example of a falsehood having been published by Kipnis. I've read both of LLH's responses to the Kipnis motion to dismiss -- a place where surely LLH had ample opportunity to offer a concrete example of a falsehood, but she has yet to produce one.

But ought she to have contacted LLH anyway? To me this is one of the most disingenuous asks in the long sordid history of ill-behaving cretins on septic blogs like DN and Ant Farm. In the first place, LLH had already filed two title IX complaints against Kipnis, and I'm guessing that those came with boilerplate demands that Kipnis not contact LLH. Even had they not, (1) there is no reason to think LLH wouldn't file yet another title IX complaint against Kipnis for making such contact and (2) it would foolish for LLH to respond to said queries as it would reopen the door to defamation litigation from Ludlow (there is no privilege attaching to communication with Kipnis). So, had Kipnis requested comments from LLH she no doubt would have been attacked for trying to sucker LLH into a lawsuit from Ludlow. But all this isn't the half of it...

Everyone keeps repeating the mantra that OMG Kipnis didn't even ask Lauren what she thought and therefore she couldn't possible know Lauren's side of the story, but that claim is foolish and disingenuous. Did Kipnis seriously not have access to LLH's side of the story? Did you honestly forget that Kipnis sat in on the entire title IX proceeding and had access to all the documents? Let's review.

1. Kipnis heard LLH's side of the story from Northwestern's title IX officer, Slavin.

2. Kipnis heard LLH's side of the story from Northwestern's outside investigator and former prosecutor, Bobb.

3. Kipnis heard LLH's side of the story from Northwestern's inside lawyers and, I gather, hired outside lawyers as well.

4. Kipnis presumably heard LLH's side of the story (or at least why Northwestern thought it was credible) from the University Administrators that pulled the trigger on Ludlow.

5. Because Kipnis had access to all the documents, she presumable had access to the findings of the title IX officer Bobb, in which Bobb, on paper, makes her full case on behalf of LLH.

6. Since she quotes from them in the book, Kipnis clearly also had access to Bobb's investigation notes in which Bobb interviews both LLH and Ludlow and also (as Kipnis tells it) in which Bobb reinterviews LLH in response to Ludlow's testimony. In other words, former prosecutor Bobb, asked LLH about things that Ludlow had said and took notes on those responses.

7. Kipnis presumably had access to all the communications between Ludlow and LLH -- not just the iphone chat logs that we have been able to see.

8. If Kipnis was missing out on LLH's side of the story after all of that she still had access to the CHE story in which LLH defends herself by saying she said all those "I love you"s and "you are my 10000 angels"s and "he is my boyfriend"s by saying she was drunk or didn't mean it.

Now, maybe you are CONVINCED-CONVINCED I tell you!-that Kipnis was still missing out on some facts that would have completely turned her around on the matter. Maybe you are thinking "Oh darned if only Kipnis had met Lauren face to face and Lauren had a chance to look over the top of her glasses and raise one eyebrow and scrunch up her mouth asymmetrically Kipnis would have seen the light and would have understood what an innocent victim-sorry, survivor-Lauren was." Or maybe you are thinking "bajeeberz if only Lauren had been able to send an email to Kipnis and tell her that all those I-love-yous and you-are-my-angels and whatnots were just things poor Lauren was manipulated into thinking."

Yeah, maybe you convinced yourself of that, but I'd say it is more likely that you are just a dishonest piece of shit, trying to distract people from the facts in the case (as set out in Kipnis) by disingenuously insisting that you think Kipnis should have interviewed LLH even though you know full well that should not have happened and would not have made a difference had it happened.

Matthew

19 day(s) ago

The first question is whether she said something FALSE. On this point we are STILL waiting for LLH, or anyone really, to give us an example of a falsehood having been published by Kipnis

If you read the original lawsuit, Miriam, you'll find all sorts of allegations about which things Kipnis said were false. In particular, see paragraph 59 of the lawsuit or just search for the word "false" in the PDF. You'll find specific examples like:

False statements about the nature of Plaintiff’s personal and professional

relationship with Ludlow, suggesting that it was a consensual dating

relationship and that Ludlow was not in a position of evaluative authority with respect to Plaintiff;

The false assertion that Plaintiff initiated six Title IX complaints, including that she initiated a Title IX complaint against “a fellow grad student”;

False statements that Plaintiff initiated two Title IX complaints against KIPNIS, as well as a Title IX complaint against KIPNIS’s support person; False statements about the contents of Plaintiff’s single Title IX complaint against KIPNIS; and

False statements throughout Unwanted Advances insinuating that Plaintiff is a liar who fabricated a false claim of rape against Ludlow to seek revenge against him.

If you want more specific allegations than this, I'm afraid you will be disappointed. That's a matter for discovery and something to be discussed in court, not a matter random people on the internet are really going to be privy to.

Clarembald

19 day(s) ago

So, nothing then. There are no examples of independently corroborated false statements by Kipnis. For you the "false statements" are just whatever LLH denies on her word alone, in conflict with all the other evidence.

Kwasi

19 day(s) ago

So, nothing then. There are no examples of independently corroborated false statements by Kipnis. For you the "false statements" are just whatever LLH denies on her word alone, in conflict with all the other evidence.

Clarembald

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know and I doubt you do. What we know are the allegations (on various sides), not the evidence behind them. As for the evidence, Isn't this a matter for a court to decide, after robust discovery, examination, and cross? Not for random internet commentators?

Patricia

19 day(s) ago

The comments by Miriam and Clarembald don't make much sense to me. As Matthew makes clear in response to Clarembald, anything more specific is a matter for discovery - even if people on the metablogs, for reason that condemn them both morally and psychologically, want to anonymously pretend to litigate the matter themselves.

As for Miriam's comment, the desire to find excuses for Kipnis' uncontroversially reckless methodology in the book is odd. The bottom line is that she sought out and used extensive direct access to one side of the story, and not to the other. The views of /both sides/ were already available in a variety of forms both via court documents and public articles, as many of Miriam's own examples make clear - and in many cases the accuser's official side was largely available via being quoted and referred to by the accused's legal team. Yet Kipnis only sought out one of them for spending time together and receiving personally curated primary documents like text messages and personal testimony. It's so bizarre - morally and psychologically - that Miriam fails to notice this, yet manages to have either committed so much else to memory or spends time Googling it for anonymous metablog comments... and only applies it to one half of the case. The purely fictional speculation about Kipnis' justifications (one need not speculate - she has several excuses on record, available online), and about what Miriam thinks would have happened, are such terrible excuses for Kipnis not to have even so much as sought out both sides of the story, in the very standard journalistic fashion.

Miriam attributes the following thought to the other side: "Oh darned if only Kipnis had met Lauren face to face and Lauren had a chance to look over the top of her glasses and raise one eyebrow and scrunch up her mouth asymmetrically Kipnis would have seen the light and would have understood what an innocent victim-sorry, survivor-Lauren was."

The thumbs up will never stop coming for comments like this, but these are the sorts of comments that give the lie to all of the claims here to be interested only in the facts and defending allegedly innocent people, and not the continued humiliation of a human being, over and over again.

Finally, I know what "DN" is, but what the hell is "Ant Farm"?

Patricia

19 day(s) ago

So, nothing then. There are no examples of independently corroborated false statements by Kipnis. For you the "false statements" are just whatever LLH denies on her word alone, in conflict with all the other evidence.

Clarembald

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know and I doubt you do. What we know are the allegations (on various sides), not the evidence behind them. As for the evidence, Isn't this a matter for a court to decide, after robust discovery, examination, and cross? Not for random internet commentators?

Kwasi

Nope. People here will continue to speculate, talking about other people's sex lives, their quality as philosophers, etc., using their names as much as possible, because they are nobly defending the philosophy profession.

Clarembald

19 day(s) ago

So we all now agree what "Miriam" wrote was correct: we do not know of any false statements by Kipnis. (Must it be said nobody has denied that it is logically possible there is evidence that has not been made public?) Meanwhile, "Patricia," perhaps your finger is getting tired from constantly wagging? Give it a rest and begin to educate yourself: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/014616727800400135

Othmar

19 day(s) ago

I understand feeling a little bloodthirsty towards LLH because of her apparent abuse of Title IX complaints. I've felt a little of that myself. What I do not understand is the sense of sheer entitlement that seems to underwrite demands to examine the evidence. This is not a courtroom. We're not in discovery. You're not a judge. You don't get to demand to see the evidence. Observing that allegations in a lawsuit brief are lacking in evidence ("whatever LLH denies on her word alone, in conflict with all the other evidence.") presupposes that they should include evidence and an assessment of counter-evidence, which is, again, either woefully misinformed about legal procedure or just oddly entitled.

Clarembald

19 day(s) ago

>OP spoke truly when he wrote that there are no known instances of X

Hey, "Clarembald" where do you get off demanding verification of X, don't you know this is private?

>????

>I'm not; I know that. Just sayin' OP was correct that *given* what's public, we have no grounds for thinking X is true.

"Clarembald"! We aren't in court. Clarembald!!! Listen! Plz!

>scratches head

>openswine.jpg

Clarembald

19 day(s) ago

And..."Bloodthirsty," really? I am half-Rumanian, and that was very vampyrephobic of you.

Mozi

19 day(s) ago

OP/Thales here. I asked a question, and no one has answered it. Whatever became of Professor X? Did he get in trouble? Is he still employed? Is Professor X, definitively, = Jeremy Fantl? I work in Fantl's field, and the answer to my last question would be useful to know. I don't want to support the work of someone who shags undergraduates.

Zeami

19 day(s) ago

There will be no discovery, no cross-examination. LLH's complaint will soon be dismissed. She has stated no basis for action in fact or in law.

Strato

18 day(s) ago

There will be no discovery, no cross-examination. LLH's complaint will soon be dismissed. She has stated no basis for action in fact or in law.

Zeami

If you're right, then this embarrassing and harmful episode in philosophy will be put to rest. If you're wrong, LLH will finally be subject to some investigation and cross-examination, and some relevant facts will come to light. Both possibilities involve some justice happening, so I guess that's good.

Calcidius

18 day(s) ago

Whatever reasons people have for discussing LLH here, they do not apply to Jeremy Fantl. He did nothing to make himself a public figure. He does not comment on the blogs. He has used no institutional mechanisms to pursue a political or personal agenda. We do not even know whether he had an affair with an undergrad or anyone else -- and if he did, it's none of our business. So, I propose that it's super-creepy to gossip about him: it's more or less like choosing a random member of the profession on whom one of us has a little dirt, and speculating about why s/he did what s/he did.

Anders

18 day(s) ago

Well, if a book out there says Fantl had a relationship with a student, I think it's important for people to know if it's true or not. If it's false, then Kipnis should be ashamed of herself, and Fantl should be exonerated, and we should know about this. If it's true, people need to know so they can react accordingly, and keep him out of conferences or volumes and away from undergraduates, etc.

Valentino

18 day(s) ago

Excuse me? How do you get from having a relationship with a student to keeping people out of conferences or volumes?

One of the most outrageous things about fascists like you is that you think you're the good guys.

For the record, I agree that people shouldn't have relationships with their undergraduate advisees. (Although unrelated undergrads are just people like everybody else.) If the story is true then (at most) he should be put on teaching probation for a semester. If it turns out that he wrote the letter that put LLH into Northwestern, which she probably didn't deserve, then maybe he should get two years.

Marin

18 day(s) ago

Laura Kipnis and LLH lawsuit:

https://dailynorthwestern.com/2017/08/03/campus/kipnis-harpercollins-file-motion-dismiss-northwestern-graduate-students-lawsuit/

posts per page.